Iran, U.S. Trade Barbs on Proliferation, Disarmament

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

MOSCOW — One week after the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors set a deadline for heightened Iranian cooperation with the agency, U.S. and Iranian officials traded criticisms here today over Tehran’s nuclear program and Washington’s allegedly lagging efforts to disarm (see GSN, Sept. 12).

The remarks came during the opening day of an international nonproliferation conference organized by the PIR Center and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and attended by high-level officials and top experts from around the world. 

Amid widespread concern that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear weapon under cover of legitimate nuclear activity, the IAEA board found last week that Iran has insufficiently explained contradictions between Tehran’s description of its programs and the findings of IAEA experts.  As the board handed down a deadline to Tehran, the Iranian delegation walked out of the boardroom and appeared to threaten noncooperation with the agency — a threat since tempered.

U.N. Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs Nobuyasu Abe, in a lunchtime address today, said, “There is an urgent need for Iran to accept the recent IAEA governing board resolution and to conclude and implement an Additional Protocol.”  Such a protocol to Iran’s IAEA safeguards agreement has been called for by the agency, the United States and others and would allow for more intrusive IAEA monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities.

U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow said this morning in an opening address to the conference that “there are very good reasons to ask whether Iran is heading down the same road” as countries such as North Korea.  Vershbow said such countries demonstrate the “weakness” of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by remaining within the NPT framework long enough to obtain the building blocks of a weapon program, then abandoning the nonproliferation regime.

In particular, Vershbow cited Iran’s refusal to let IAEA inspectors visit one site until after it had been substantially modified and the country’s shifting statements on whether elements of its uranium enrichment program are indigenous or imported.

“Nothing about Iran’s behavior,” Vershbow said, “is consistent with what one would expect from a country that is honoring its NPT obligations. … Iran is a critical test for the NPT and the international community’s ability to give effective power to the IAEA.”

Iranian Ambassador to Russia Gholamreza Shafei, in remarks read by an aide as part of a panel discussion this morning, largely avoided discussion of the specifics of the case against Iran.  Another Iranian representative, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, who is deputy director general of international political affairs in Iran’s Foreign Ministry, said heightened questions about his country’s nuclear activity are the result not of suspicious behavior but of greater access granted in recent months to the IAEA.

Shafei declared his country theologically opposed to nuclear weapons, alluded to Israel’s undeclared nuclear weapon program as unfair and criticized declared nuclear weapon states for insufficient progress toward disarmament.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran believes, under Islamic principles and beliefs, … that nuclear weapons are inhuman and illegal, and in our defense doctrine, we have not included weapons of this kind,” Shafei said.

Apparently referring to Israel, Shafei said the fact that some countries do not participate in the international nonproliferation regime is a “violation” of the regime that creates rivalries among countries.  He called for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East and a “very just and nondiscriminatory global decision vis-a-vis international mechanisms of nonproliferation.”

The Bushehr nuclear power plant, set to become Iran’s first major nuclear facility when Russia completes its construction, was also a focus of discussion today at the conference.  Despite caution voiced by the United States, Russia has indicated it is moving ahead with agreements to supply Iran with fuel for the facility and to take back spent fuel from the reactor (see related GSN story, today).

Shafei said Iranian-Russian nuclear cooperation is “pursued in the context of the peaceful use of nuclear energy” and is conducted with appropriate IAEA monitoring.  He stressed that the IAEA’s role is not only to pursue suspected nuclear weapon proliferators but also to aid peaceful nuclear programs.

“The A-bomb and the weapons of mass destruction,” Shafei said, “should have no place in this world.  We are saying no to the A-bomb and WMD, but we are saying yes to the peaceful use of the atom.  No one will ever be able to push us from this way we have taken.”

Carnegie Endowment Senior Associate George Perkovich said Iran “shows the importance of having rules,” since the IAEA will resolve the situation if the country’s programs are in fact peaceful in nature.  He added, though, that if Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, the international nonproliferation system is “not designed to solve that problem” and that a “broader international effort” will be needed that addresses politics and security in Iran and its region.

Perkovich said U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan or another high international official could “convene a regional dialogue of parties” to determine “just what is the future structure of the Persian Gulf security environment.

U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev are scheduled to speak this evening at the conference.

Back to top

U.S., Russia Extend Specific “Nuclear Cities” Projects Before Broader Agreement Lapses

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

MOSCOW — With a key U.S.-Russian threat reduction effort set to expire Monday, U.S. and Russian officials here signed an agreement today authorizing the continuation of ongoing projects under the program (see GSN, July 23).

The Nuclear Cities Initiative agreement will be allowed to expire Monday, U.S. officials here confirmed today, because of U.S. concerns that its liability provisions would not sufficiently protect U.S. officials or contractors in case of injury or damages.  The 1998 Plutonium Science and Technology agreement was allowed to expire in July because of the same liability concerns, which have been a hot topic at an international nonproliferation conference that began here this morning (see GSN, July 25).

Through the initiative, the United States has helped to scale back activities in Russian nuclear weapon sites and to convert some sites to other uses.  According to the U.S. Energy Department’s Web site, the initiative “is the only U.S. government program whose primary aim is to help downsize the Russian nuclear weapons complex.”

Despite the lapsing initiative, 69 existing projects under the agreement will be allowed to continue until completion.  Paul Longsworth, deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation at the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, and a Russian counterpart signed a protocol this morning invoking language in the NCI agreement that allows for such extension of projects beyond the life of the agreement itself.

Back to top

Prospects for Russian-Iranian Fuel Agreement Played Down as Bush-Putin Summit Nears

Just three days after suggesting that a Russian-Iranian nuclear power plant fuel arrangement was close to completion, a senior Russian official said the agreement was actually far from finished (see GSN, Sept. 17).

“I cannot name a date,” Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev told reporters earlier today in Moscow.  Negotiations were “taking a long time — these are prolonged discussions,” he added.

The two countries are trying to finalize a deal in which Russia would provide fresh fuel for the nuclear reactor it is building in Iran and then Tehran would later return the spent fuel to Russia.  Rumyantsev said Tuesday in Vienna that the deal was nearly done (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Sept. 19).

Rumyantsev’s remarks today followed a meeting with U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (Richard Balmforth, Reuters, Washington Post, Sept. 19).  These talks in turn followed nonproliferation discussions earlier this week in Moscow between U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak (RFE/RL, Sept. 18).

Rumyantsev denied, however, that Russia was deliberating slowing its cooperation with Iran in response to U.S. pressure.

“This does not correspond to reality,” he said (Balmforth, Reuters).

Addressing a nonproliferation conference in Moscow later today, Rumyantsev said the process was only slowed because Iran was conducting these types of talks for the first time.

“Our Iranian colleagues, they have no experience in the use of nuclear energy,” he said, expressing optimism that the deal would be completed.

“They commit themselves to return the fuel,” Rumyantsev said, “We’re going to take it back for them.  There’s no problem” (Joe Fiorill, GSN, Sept. 19).

The slow pace toward finishing the agreement was likely to ease U.S.-Russian tensions on this issue when U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin hold a scheduled Sept. 26-27 meeting at the Camp David presidential retreat, Reuters reported (Balmforth, Reuters).

Back to top

Cuba Signs IAEA Safeguards Agreement, Additional Protocol

Cuba yesterday signed a comprehensive nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (see GSN, Nov. 5, 2002).  In addition, Cuba also signed an Additional Protocol to its safeguards agreement, which gives the IAEA the authority to conduct more intrusive monitoring of Havana’s nuclear activities (International Atomic Energy Agency release, Sept. 18).

Back to top

U.S. Analysts Struggle to Count North Korean Nuclear Weapons

Although the CIA officially estimates that North Korea might possess one or two nuclear weapons, some U.S. intelligence analysts now fear that Pyongyang could actually have as many as a half-dozen, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 17).

North Korea’s nuclear program is so secretive, however, that precise assessments are difficult to make, officials said.

Analysts said three key variables affect U.S. estimates — how much plutonium North Korea produced in the 1980s, how much it produced this year (see GSN, Sept. 12) and how much plutonium is needed to make a North Korean nuclear weapon.

“We’re trying to nail that down,” said U.S. Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.  “The consequences of them having more nuclear warheads is significant, in terms of conducting a test, or possibly trafficking in nuclear materials,” he added.

With so few weapons, each additional warhead would substantially add to North Korea’s nuclear capability and its leverage at the negotiating table, experts said.  If Pyongyang has just one or two nuclear weapons, it could use them only as weapons of last resort, but additional weapons would give North Korea the ability to use some in tests or in warfare and still retain a small number for deterrence.

Furthermore, a surplus of weapons would ease the way toward exporting nuclear materials, the experts said (John Lumpkin, Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 18).

Chinese Denies North Korean Border Pressure

Meanwhile, Beijing yesterday denied that troop activity along the Chinese-North Korean was intended to pressure Pyongyang.  Hong Kong media reported this week that 150,000 Chinese troops were recently deployed to the border (see GSN, Sept. 15).

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said troops recently took over border control duties as part of a long-planned administrative transition.

“The border between China and the D.P.R.K. is relatively stable, generally speaking,” Kong said, “There are many exchanges, including trade, along the border” (Joe McDonald, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Sept. 18).

Back to top

Russia Suspends Tu-160 Bomber Flights

Russian Air Force Chief of Staff Boris Cheltsov has said that Moscow has suspended flights of the Tu-160 “Blackjack” strategic bomber after one crashed during a training exercise, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, July 18).  The flights will be suspended until the cause of the crash has been determined, Cheltsov said (Washington Post, Sept. 19).

Back to top

IAEA General Conference Approves Agency Budget, New Board Members

Delegates at the International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference, ending today in Vienna, approved the agency’s fiscal 2004-2005 budget yesterday and elected new members to the IAEA Board of Governors (see GSN, Sept. 18).

The conference yesterday approved an agency budget of almost $270 million, which the IAEA board had approved this summer.  The budget represents the “first significant increase” in IAEA funding in 15 years, an agency press release said.  The budget also calls for further phased funding increases through 2007 (see GSN, July 21).

Most of the approved budget’s funding will go toward the IAEA’s verification program.  In addition, funding has also been allocated for safety and nuclear science and technology programs (International Atomic Energy Agency release I, Sept. 18).

The conference yesterday also elected 11 new members to the 35-member IAEA board.  The new members are Belgium, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, South Korea, Tunisia and Vietnam.  The board is scheduled to meet next week to elect a chairman and vice chairman for the 2003-2004 period (International Atomic Energy Agency release II, Sept. 18).

Back to top

IAEA General Conference Delegates Briefed on Radioactive Waste Safety Convention

Delegates at the International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference, being held this week in Vienna, were briefed yesterday on the status and benefits of an international convention on the safety of radioactive waste and spent fuel management (see GSN, April 4).

The briefing session was in preparation for the first peer-review meeting of convention members, scheduled to be held Nov. 3-14, according to an IAEA press release.  The meeting, the first to be held since the convention entered into force June 2001, will include reviews of national implementation reports to be submitted by the 32 countries that have ratified the convention (International Atomic Energy Agency release, Sept. 18).

Back to top

CTBTO Holds Out Hope for U.S. Test Ban Ratification

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

VIENNA — Despite the Bush administration’s refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty — and its efforts to shorten the time needed to prepare for resumed nuclear testing — top international officials here are holding out hope that patient diplomacy can reinvigorate the stalled global effort to ban nuclear test explosions (see GSN, July 25).

Twelve specific countries’ ratifications are still needed for the treaty to take effect, but a special focus on the recalcitrant United States was apparent in interviews here last week with those behind the push to bring the treaty into force.

“What is really important is where the United States are going, and without the United States, this treaty really … would have no future — if the United States would pull out of this.  But this is not what is happening,” said Wolfgang Hoffmann, executive director of the CTBT Organization, the institution created to implement the 1996 treaty.

Although Washington has observed a moratorium on nuclear weapon tests for 11 years, officials in the Bush administration have said unforeseen stockpile problems or newly developed weapons might require resumed testing, and the administration has openly expressed its opposition to ratifying the treaty.

The CTBTO convened countries here early this month in a bid to jump-start progress on the treaty, but the United States, citing its opposition to the pact, sent no delegation (see GSN, July 9).  The organization this week released its report on the Sept. 3-5 meeting (see GSN, Sept. 5).

Several countries at the meeting expressed frustration at the pace of progress toward implementation of the treaty and the course of U.S. nuclear policy.  Speaking on behalf of the increasingly visible Nonaligned Movement, Malaysia expressed concern at both the U.S. treaty position and Washington’s recent Nuclear Posture Review, which envisions the possibility of new nuclear weapon testing.

“We believe that the principle of leadership by example should be displayed by the nuclear weapon states in this important endeavor,” the statement said.

Besides promoting signatures and ratifications, the CTBTO is overseeing the establishment of a global system to detect nuclear explosions, with an eye toward monitoring treaty compliance.  Hoffmann stressed progress on the latter front, as well as U.S. support for the effort — the United States supplies 22 percent of the CTBTO budget, much of it devoted to the monitoring network — despite Washington’s avowed intention not to ratify the treaty.

“On the technical track, we have made a lot of progress. … We are confident now that there are no ‘white spots’ on the globe, at least with our mainstay, which is seismic detection,” said Hoffmann, drawing a link between the effectiveness of the monitoring system and prospects for new ratifications.

“The United States are very much interested in what we are doing technically, and there we are having an excellent cooperation.  They are helping us, we are helping them, and the money is coming in. … We would be lost without this money; this is quite clear. … This very practical approach to the CTBT is very important for us,” Hoffman said (see GSN, Sept. 18, 2002).

Finnish envoy Tom Groenberg, who led preparations for this month’s conference, said he views the United States as bound by the CTBT under the Vienna Convention on treaties, despite its failure to ratify the test ban pact.

“We hope, of course, that they would” ratify the treaty, Groenberg said, “but this administration has indicated what the position of the current administration is.”

“If you are cynical,” he said, “you could ask yourself, ‘So what?’ … According to international law, you are bound by a treaty with your signature … as long as there is a perspective that it would enter into force — and we do have that perspective.”

“Whether you have ratified or not isn’t actually that important,” he said.

In any case, according to Hoffmann, a new multilateralism may be on the rise in Washington, signaling better times ahead for measures such as the CTBT.

“We see changes in the American position towards multilateral approaches.  I mean, you see what’s happening now as far as Iraq is concerned.  The Americans are approaching the U.N., and this is a question of burden-sharing,” Hoffmann said.

“For a time,” he added, “multilateralism had a bad name in the United States; this you can see across the spectrum. … Now, the pendulum seems to swing more in the direction of a multilateral approach, and if this is true for Iraq, this might become true for other areas as well.”

Citing technical and political considerations, both Hoffman and Groenberg said new U.S. tests are not necessarily imminent, and neither offered any assessment of the implications of such tests for the CTBT.

“We, of course, do hope that no tests will take place, and, of course, according to the treaty, you are not supposed to make any tests. … And there is the good old British saying that you shouldn’t cross the bridge before you have reached it,” said Groenberg.

Said Hoffmann, “I don’t think [tests are] a necessity, and I think that this might … in global politics … give the wrong signal to others, and therefore, I think the United States will weigh this very carefully. … They will always act along with their own lines of interest.”

CTBTO Pushed “Road Map,” but  Some Seek More Radical Change

Under the terms of the treaty, entry into force requires signature and ratification by 44 specific countries, 32 of which have ratified.  Nine others — China, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, the United States and Vietnam — have signed but not ratified, and three — North Korea, India and Pakistan — have not signed.

Several European countries have pushed for U.S. ratification during Washington visits this year, and this month’s conference ended with a call for more such diplomacy.  The meeting, a biannual affair authorized under Article XIV of the treaty, yielded a declaration that included a general call for new signatures and ratifications and the proposal of 12 specific measures — including regional seminars and a heightened attention to the pact in bilateral talks involving signatories — to promote the treaty’s entry into force.

“New in the declaration,” said Groenberg, “is that it isn’t just a repetition.  We do have … what you could call a … road map or an action plan. … And that, I hope, will be a kind of motor in order to get countries to do something.”

“There definitely won’t be an entry into force in the very near future,” he added, “but if you have a longer-term perspective, I think there are reasons that one could be optimistic.  We are certainly going to be able to bring down the number of 12 to, I hope, less than 10, in a year or two — in a year, actually, in one year. … We have got indications that a number of countries are actually prepared now, and the obstacles are technical, not political.”

China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo appear to be among the countries cited by Groenberg.  China has vowed to ratify the treaty quickly, but, as Hoffmann said, “‘Quickly’ in Chinese terms can be long in European terms.  What is important now is that they say they are moving toward ratification” (see GSN, Sept. 4).  Hoffmann added that, with a new D.R.C. legislature set to begin work Oct. 3, the CTBTO has “the assurance of the political leadership that they will bring this into parliament and have this ratified.”

Among the developments at this month’s meeting that could lead to more ratifications, Hoffmann cited a proposal to create a permanent special representative of the signatory states “to look after this question of entry into force … a sort of coordination point who would pull together the strings, the endeavors of different states and also coordinate with the secretariat.”  He also noted that a “special fund” has been proposed “to further ratifications,” but he acknowledged that the concrete uses to which the money would be put remain unclear.

Many nongovernmental organizations appear to support such efforts.  Klaus Renoldner of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War said getting the CTBT on the agenda of various bilateral meetings should be a main mechanism for exerting pressure on recalcitrant signatories.  Speaking for 97 NGOs earlier this month at the CTBTO meeting, Renoldner said NGOs, governments, international organizations and members of the media should all contribute to the effort.

Calls have begun to be heard, though, for more innovative efforts to speed the treaty’s entry into force.  South African representative Alfred Tokollo Moleah said Sept. 5, as the Article XIV meeting drew to a close, that his country has doubts about the effectiveness of the biannual conferences.  He called this year’s meeting less “dynamic” than those held in 2001 and 1999 (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2001).

Under Article XIV, countries that have ratified the CTBT could be justified in pursuing more dramatic means than the stepped-up diplomatic measures that have been tried so far.  The treaty is written in broad terms, giving countries that have ratified the ability to use Article XIV conferences to “consider and decide by consensus what measures consistent with international law may be undertaken to accelerate the ratification process.”

Groenberg maintained that signatories are bound by the text for now and as long as there is a “perspective” of entry into force, but he added that different measures could one day become appropriate.

“We might one day, of course, face a situation where there is a need, perhaps, to do something in order to either keep the perspective or … to amend the text so that it would enter into force. … That time hasn’t yet come,” he said.

Hoffman said questions of “whether one could change this formula for entry into force or whether one should declare provisional application of the treaty” have “not been part of the official dealings of the conference,” adding, “Multilateral diplomacy is always long-term.”

The executive director added, though, that if the CTBT monitoring network is completed before the treaty enters into force, “The question arises, ‘What are we doing with this?’”

“I think only then,” he said, “we have the serious question of whether we would like to apply this treaty, with all its assets, provisionally.  And for me, it’s difficult to see whether and when such a path would be taken.  I mean, at the moment, the clear hope is that the Americans, among these 12, will come around and ratify the treaty at their own will and decision.”

Hoffmann added that political progress in regions such as South Asia and the Middle East could ease ratifications of the treaty independently of any U.N. or CTBTO action.

In the Middle East, he said, “it would be … important that one of the countries that play a major role would be the first to do it.”  India and Pakistan, he added, “will sign” when “the train starts moving,” but for now are both observing a test moratorium.

“If India signs, then Pakistan will sign immediately.  Pakistan would not feel secure enough to sign first,” Hoffmann said.

“Everybody is looking at everybody else,” he said, “and, in the long run, they probably can go together, hand in hand, to [U.N. Secretary General] Kofi Annan and hand in their instruments of ratification, to be sure that the other one is not holding back.”

In the case of Iran, which is under a deadline to step up cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and demonstrate it is not covertly developing nuclear weapons, the prospect for CTBT ratification is unclear.

 “When I visited Iran,” Hoffmann said, “I met some people who really were with us, but others who were adamantly opposed to this treaty, because they thought that we just came in to spy on them. … The Iranians will have to make up their minds what they really want, but of course, foremost in their mind is the dealings with the agency at the moment.”

Renoldner, the NGO representative, cited a conversation with an Iranian delegate at recent CTBT talks, who said his country supported the treaty.

“I said to him, ‘Why didn’t you sign?’ … The answer that he gave me was not a reasonable answer,” he said.

Ultimately, the fate of the treaty could depend on the will of the United States, which under former President Bill Clinton supported ratification of the treaty.  Countries that have not signed or ratified may be more likely to do so if the United States came into the fold, sources agreed.

“We can just hope,” Renoldner said, “that one day, there will be another president of the United States who maybe will restart a campaign for the CTBT again.”

Back to top

Saudi Arabia Examining Nuclear Options

Saudi Arabia has begun a strategic review that includes considering the option of acquiring nuclear weapons, the London Guardian reported today.

According to the Guardian, senior Saudi officials are currently examining such options as obtaining nuclear weapons for deterrence purposes, maintaining or entering into an alliance with a nuclear-armed country for protection, or attempting to create a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone.  It is unknown if Saudi officials have made any decisions on any of the three approaches.

David Albright, director of the Institute for Science and International Security, said that Saudi Arabia, if it were to choose to obtain nuclear weapons, would be more likely to buy them outright rather than attempt to build them.  If Saudi Arabia were to do so, it would become the first nuclear-armed country to obtain its weapons by purchasing them, according to the Guardian.

“There [have] always been worries that the Saudis would go down this path if provoked,” Albright said.  “There is growing U.S. hostility which could lead to the removal of the U.S. umbrella and will the Saudis be intimidated by Iran?  They’ve got to be nervous,” he said.

A senior U.N. official involved in nuclear nonproliferation efforts said Saudi Arabia’s examination of its nuclear options would be carefully monitored.

“Our antennae are up,” the official said.  “The international community can rest assured we do keep track of such events if they go beyond talk,” the official added (MacAskill/Traynor, London Guardian, Sept. 18).

Saudi Arabia today, however, denied the Guardian report.

“Saudi Arabia is not considering acquiring a nuclear bomb or nuclear weapons of any kind,” the Saudi Embassy in London said in a statement.  “There is no atomic energy program in any part of the kingdom and neither is one being considered,” it said (Reuters, Sept. 18).

Back to top

Arab League Calls on Israel to Sign Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

The Arab League yesterday submitted a draft resolution to the International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference, currently meeting in Vienna, calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and to open its nuclear sites to international inspections (see GSN, July 28).

“The minimum is that Israel could sign the NPT,” Omani IAEA Ambassador Salim al-Riyami said.  “All the countries in the region have signed it,” he said.

While Israel has never formally acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons, experts believe it has between 100 and 200 bombs, according to Al-Jazeera.net.  Al-Riyami said it was unfair for Western countries to call on the IAEA to apply pressure on Iran while ignoring Israel’s nuclear weapons program. 

“I think in the Arab region, people do think that there is a double standard regarding the countries and how (their nuclear programs) should be tackled,” al-Riyami said.

Gideon Frank, head of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission, called on conference members to not support the Arab League’s resolution, saying “We see no factual basis for this draft resolution”(Al-Jazeera.net, Sept. 17).

Back to top

Experts Warn of Iranian Nuclear Intentions

U.S. and Israeli officials, joined by private analysts, warned yesterday that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program that threatens the Middle East, the United States and the international nonproliferation regime (see GSN, Sept. 17).

At a Washington session of the U.S.-Israeli Joint Parliamentary Committee, the panel of experts offered a dire outlook of Iran’s intentions.

“Iran is in fact emerging rapidly as the new mass destruction weapon threat in the Middle East.  It is clear to me, at least from what I know, that if Iran continues down its present path, we will be looking at a new nuclear weapons power within the next few years,” said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

Milhollin said Iran’s pursuit of ballistic missile technology was intended only to provide the means to deliver nuclear weapons (see GSN, Aug. 6).

Israeli Knesset member Yuval Steinitz agreed.

“The Iranian nuclear program is really a military nuclear program with the aim of threatening not just the Middle East or Israel, but NATO and Europe, and maybe to be able to target the United States of America,” he said.

A U.S. State Department official said Iran’s efforts were endangering the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other international efforts.

“If left unchallenged, Iran’s development of a nuclear weapons program will seriously weaken the NPT and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency].  Already faced with North Korea’s brazen disregard for its treaty obligations, the NPT would be undermined still further if Iran were able to disregard its treaty obligations in a similar way,” said Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance Paula DeSutter (Deborah Tate, VOA News, Sept. 18).

Back to top

Russia, Iran Vow to Continue Nuclear Activities; Spent Fuel Pact Nears

Russia yesterday reaffirmed its intention to continue providing nuclear assistance to Iran despite uncertainty over whether Tehran will cooperate with international efforts to learn more about its nuclear activities (see GSN, Sept. 15).

“Russia does not see any reason for stopping its cooperation with Iran in the nuclear sphere, because Iran does not violate any provisions of international law,” said Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev, speaking to reporters yesterday in Vienna at an annual meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The agency’s Board of Governors last week set an Oct. 31 deadline for Iran to clarify several features of its nuclear program that have raised questions about its compliance with international nuclear nonproliferation rules (see GSN, Sept. 12).

Despite the agency’s concerns and U.S. pressure, Russia would proceed with its project to build and fuel a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power reactor in Iran, Rumyantsev said.

“While the IAEA resolution on the nuclear program of Iran was drafted, U.S. representatives hinted to us that it would be better for Russia to withdraw from Iran,” he said.  “We asked them to explain to us why we should do that, but we got no clear answer,” he added (Channel NewsAsia, Sept. 17).

Iranian officials have said Tehran would not cease cooperation with the IAEA, as was once considered, but they have not indicated if Iran would provide all the information requested in Friday’s resolution.

Opinion appears to be divided within Iran over how much cooperation to offer, but officials there agree that Iranian nuclear activities will continue, according to reports (Agence France-Presse/IranMania.com, Sept. 17).

“Our slogan for the atomic bomb and weapons of mass destruction is ‘No, no, no,’ but for advanced technology, including peaceful nuclear technology is ‘Yes, yes, yes,’” Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said Monday.

“No one can stop us from our path,” he said, adding, “We do not want atomic and nuclear technology for destroying others” (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Sept. 15).

Spent Fuel Agreement

Rumyantsev also said yesterday that Moscow and Tehran were close to signing an agreement for Iran to return the spent fuel from its reactor to Russia. 

“We will agree,” he said.  “We don’t have any contradictions,” he added.

The largest remaining obstacle was deciding who should sign the agreement and where, he said.  Iranian officials were scheduled to visit Moscow in the next few days to discuss the issue, Rumyantsev said.

Another issue, deciding which nation would be responsible for paying for the spent fuel transport and storage, could be resolved after the agreement was signed, he said (see GSN, Sept. 10).

If Tehran insisted on charging Russia for the spent fuel transport and storage, then Russia would probably increase “the price for the fresh fuel,” Rumyantsev said (George Jahn, Associated Press/Moscow Times, Sept. 17).

Back to top

Senate Funds Nuclear Weapon Research in Approving Energy Bill

The U.S. Senate yesterday approved the Bush administration’s full request for research into new types of nuclear weapons, rejecting a Democratic effort to eliminate funding for those and other nuclear weapon activities (see GSN, Sept. 16).

The Senate voted 53-41 to reject an amendment offered by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would have eliminated $21 million requested by the Bush administration to explore earth-penetrating and low-yield nuclear weapons.  Their amendment would also have delayed site selection for a new plutonium “pit” production facility and ended an effort to reduce the time needed to prepare for resuming nuclear testing.

The Senate did approve, however, a measure offered by Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to limit the funding to research activities only, thereby requiring the administration to request additional approval if it wishes to enter a development phase.

After killing the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment and approving the Reed measure, the Senate voted 92-0 to pass the $27.3 billion fiscal 2004 energy and water appropriations bill, setting up a House-Senate negotiation to resolve differences between their versions of the bill (Dewar/Pincus, Washington Post, Sept. 17).

Feinstein and Kennedy said they would continue their effort to cut the funding during the House-Senate conference (Carl Hulse, New York Times, Sept. 17).

While the Senate approved the full administration request — specifically $15 million for the earth-penetrating weapon, $6 million for the low-yield weapon, $22.8 million for the plutonium facility and $24 million for nuclear test readiness — the U.S. House of Representatives slashed those numbers earlier this year.  It reduced funding for the earth-penetrator and the plutonium plant to $5 million and $10 million, respectively, and eliminated funds for the low-yield weapon and the test site (George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, Sept. 17).

The differing positions suggest that the administration will receive at least some the funding it is seeking, according to the Washington Post.

Senate debate prior to yesterday’s vote focused on whether the administration plans were a step toward building and deploying new nuclear weapons, a move that Democrats argued would promote nuclear proliferation. 

“The last thing the world needs is to have the United States start playing Lone Range with nuclear weapons,” Kennedy said in a news conference yesterday.  “How can we demand that North Korea and Iran abandon their nuclear weapons programs while we develop a new generation of those weapons ourselves?” he added (Dewar/Pincus, Washington Post).

Republicans countered that the bill would only fund research to prepare the United States for future contingencies.

“There’s nothing in this bill that produces a single new nuclear weapon,” said Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.).

Feinstein, however, said the money would move the United States in that direction.

“This is the beginning,” she said.  “This money will go to field a new generation of nuclear weapons.  We should not do this,” she added (Nick Anderson, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 17).

Back to top

Chinese Delegation Set to Visit North Korea This Week

A Chinese delegation led by parliamentary chairman Wu Bangguo is set to visit North Korea later this week, a diplomatic source said today (see GSN, Sept. 16).

The source said the delegation is expected to travel to Pyongyang Sept. 20 on a North Korean airline flight.  The trip is unofficial and details of its itinerary are being kept secret, the source said.

“It is highly likely that this visit will serve as a turning point in North Korea-China relations,” the source said (Yonhap news agency/BBC Monitoring, Sept. 17).

Meanwhile, South Korean opposition leader Choe Byung-yul called for the end of food and energy assistance to North Korea if six-nation talks fail to resolve the crisis surrounding Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program.

“It would be great if we could find a solution just through dialogue, but the nuclear issue is not one we can just drag on,” said Choe, chairman of the Grand National Party.

Tens of thousands of North Koreans have fled into China because of a lack of food, but there have been fewer deaths from starvation within North Korea because of international food aid, according to Choe.

“That’s why some people point out that perhaps the easiest pressure point or the most fatal pressure that anyone could impose on North Korea to resolve the nuclear issue is to cut off food aid,” he said.

Sanctions against North Korea would be ineffective, however, without Chinese participation, Choe said.  “If China cuts off food aid and energy supply, that could seriously jeopardize North Korea,” he said (Sharon Behn, Washington Times, Sept. 17).

Back to top

U.S. Senators Disagree on Need for Nuclear Weapon Research

U.S. senators yesterday debated the merits of U.S. nuclear weapons research as two Democrats introduced a measure to cut funding from several Energy Department efforts (see GSN, Sept. 15).

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced a measure to eliminate requested funds for several planned Energy Department activities, including research into earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, research into low-yield nuclear weapons, efforts to reduce the time needed to prepare for a nuclear test, and the selection of a site to build a plutonium “pit” production facility.  A vote on the amendment to the fiscal 2004 energy and water appropriations bill was expected today.

The Republican-led U.S. House limited the same programs in its version of the energy bill earlier this year (see GSN, July 17).  In its report at the time, the House Appropriations Committee wrote, “It appears to the committee the Department (of Energy) is proposing to rebuild, restart and redo and otherwise exercise every capability that was used over the past 40 years of the Cold War and at the same time prepare for a future with an expanded mission for nuclear weapons” (Nick Anderson, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 16)

As documented in the Congressional Record, Feinstein and Kennedy argued that improving the U.S. ability to design, test and build new types of nuclear weapons would set back U.S. and international nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

“I deeply believe the combined impact of studies or development of new nuclear weapons, enhancing the posture of our test sites and developing a new plutonium pit facility could well have the result of leading these other nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants to resume or start testing and to seek to enlarge their own nuclear forces — action that would fundamentally alter future nonproliferation efforts and undermine our own security.  Instead of increasing it, it will undermine it,” Feinstein said.

Increased nuclear proliferation, in turn, would threaten the tremendous conventional military advantage the United States now enjoys, Kennedy said.

“There is one modern military force in the world, and it happens to be the United States.  We have to keep it that way.  Why put at risk that advantage with the proliferation by other countries of small, useful nukes?” Kennedy said.

On that point, Feinstein said, “Next year we will spend more on our military than all of the other 191 nations on the planet combined.  If we can’t protect ourselves without thinking about nuclear weapons, who can?”

Senators Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) opposed the proposed amendment and disagreed that U.S. research would spur international nuclear proliferation.

“The idea that any country is going to react by saying, ‘We are going to go do something now and build more bombs because they are getting [the] Nevada [Test Site] ready,’ is an absurdity.  It has no logic to it,” Domenici said.

Stressing that “there is no money in this bill to build new weapons,” Domenici argued that U.S. nuclear weapon scientists must be free to study existing weapons and possible future designs.

“We should not have to have them worrying all the time whether thinking about certain aspects of a nuclear weapon of the future is a violation of the law,” Domenici said.

He added that uncertainties about the effects of aging on existing weapons mean that the United States cannot permanently rule out explosive testing.

“We should make [the] Nevada [Test Site] modern so if we need it, we use it, not three years after we decide we need a test because we have some idea there is something amiss in some of our weapons which are 35, 40, and 45 years old,” Domenici said.

Kyl argued that Cold War-era U.S. nuclear weapons do not provide a “credible deterrent” because no enemy would believe the United States would be willing to kill million of civilians with a large nuclear weapon.

“If smaller, more precise weapons could the job just as well, wouldn’t people of good will, who are concerned about unnecessary death, be interested in at least thinking about weapons that would pose a deterrent to an attack but would not kill as many people, would not kill so indiscriminately?” Kyl said (Congressional Record, p.S11435, Sept. 15).

Back to top

China, U.S. Sign Nonproliferation Deal for Technology Transfer

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

VIENNA — U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Chinese Atomic Energy Authority Chairman Zhang Hua-zhu this morning signed a statement of intent committing their countries to a new process for exchanging nonproliferation assurances in the context of nuclear technology transfers.

“These understandings open the way for greater participation by U.S. nuclear industry in China’s growing nuclear power program,” Abraham said in an Energy Department release.

The deal sets up new procedures for determining when technology transfers require government-to-government promises not to proliferate and for communicating such promises.  The deal had previously been formally adopted via an exchange of diplomatic notes.

The U.S. Energy Department said U.S. companies could now use its authorizations to provide technology and services to China’s nuclear energy program, something that some U.S. firms were previously prevented from doing because of a lack of nonproliferation assurances.

The department said the agreement means “that when nuclear technology proposed for transfer is determined to require nonproliferation assurances, the government of the recipient country will pledge that the technology will be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and will not be retransferred to another country without the prior consent of the government of the supplier country.”

The agreement also provides for extending term limits on Energy Department authorizations upon Chinese request and for exchanging nonproliferation assurances for joint U.S.-Chinese projects.  The first such project involves collaboration on a modular high-temperature gas pebble bed reactor by scientists at Tsinghua University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

After the signing, Abraham told reporters the statement of intent is part of generally stepped-up U.S.-Chinese cooperation on energy matters.  “We look forward to expanding our energy relationship on a number of fronts,” he said.

Back to top

U.S. Pays for KEDO This Year, But Has Not Requested Future Funds

U.S. President George W. Bush formally agreed yesterday to fund the U.S. share of this fiscal year’s administrative costs of the organization responsible for implementing the 1994 U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework.

According to the White House, Bush “determined that it is in the vital U.S. national security interest to provide up to $3.72 million in assistance to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) for administrative expenses for fiscal year 2003.”

The money will not be used to support the ongoing construction of nuclear reactors in North Korea or to finance any shipments of fuel oil, both of which North Korea was to receive in exchange for freezing its nuclear activities.  The fuel shipments were halted last year after North Korea reportedly acknowledged continuing its nuclear program (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2002; White House release, Sept. 15).

Bush has not asked the U.S. Congress for any KEDO funds for fiscal 2004, according to administration officials.

Meanwhile, the United States is examining whether to continue to provide food aid to North Korea.  The United States has delivered 44,000 tons of food this year, but concerns over the food actually reaching needy North Koreans have U.S. officials reviewing whether to supply the 66,000 tons scheduled to be provided by the end of the year, according to U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli (see GSN, Feb. 25).

He said North Korea has restricted the U.N. World Food Program’s ability to monitor food deliveries (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Sept. 15).

Another State Department official warned yesterday that North Korea is a significant participant in international illicit drug trade.  The accusation was made in an annual presidential report submitted yesterday to Congress on drug trafficking (see GSN, May 21).

“The president expresses his deep concern about the drug trafficking situation with respect to North Korea, and the continued allegations of involvement by state agents and enterprise in the narcotics trade, chiefly the methamphetamine trade,” said Paul Simons, acting assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs (Federal News Service transcript, Sept. 15).

Back to top

Washington, Seoul Sign Joint Nuclear Research Agreement

The United States and South Korea yesterday signed a five-year agreement to conduct joint research on proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel cycle technologies.

The agreement is the sixth in a series to implement a U.S.-South Korean memorandum of understanding that promotes laboratory exchanges on advanced nuclear energy technologies, according to a U.S. Energy Department release.  Yesterday’s agreement will help implement U.S.-South Korean cooperation in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, which U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced earlier this year.

“Under this agreement, both countries will cooperate on development of these advanced technologies that enhance our energy security and are safer, less waste intensive, and more proliferation resistant,” Abraham said (U.S. Energy Department release, Sept. 15).

Back to top

IAEA General Conference Continues, Discusses Civilian Nuclear Issues

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s General Conference met for a second day today in Vienna and discussed several issues relating to civilian nuclear issues (see GSN, Sept. 15).

At today’s meeting, international experts met to discuss new advances in nuclear science and technology, including advances in nuclear power, nuclear medicine, safety standards and safeguards technology, according to an IAEA release.  Nuclear officials from IAEA members also met this morning to discuss safety issues. 

In addition, senior IAEA staff yesterday briefed conference delegates on the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles, which includes studies of “next generation” nuclear power plants.  (International Atomic Energy Agency release, Sept. 16).

Yesterday, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, head of the U.S. delegation to the conference, said the United States would contribute an additional $3 million to the IAEA’s nuclear security fund.  The additional money is set to go toward helping to improve the safeguarding and protection of nuclear materials, preventing the trafficking of radiological materials and improving the security of research reactors, Abraham said.  He called on other IAEA members to make similar contributions to the fund.

“Together, we must build on the successes of the past and overcome the challenges of the present, so that our ability to enjoy the benefits of peaceful nuclear cooperation can be expanded and sustained into the future,” Abraham said (U.S. State Department release, Sept. 15).

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan yesterday called for the further strengthening of the international nuclear nonproliferation regime through the conclusion of IAEA safeguards agreements.

“I support the agency’s continuing efforts to strengthen international safeguards — in particular, to promote conclusion of Additional Protocols by Iran and other states, and to encourage other countries to conclude safeguards agreements with the agency,” Annan said in a message to the conference (U.N. release, Sept. 15).

Back to top

Iran Backpedals, Promises Continuing IAEA Cooperation

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

VIENNA — Under fire over allegations of clandestine nuclear weapon development, Iran appeared this morning to soften its line on cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, while the United States sought to place the Iranian question in the context of concerns over North Korea’s nuclear programs.

As the International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference opened a weeklong meeting here today, Iranian Vice President for Atomic Energy Gholamreza Aghazadeh told the assembled delegates that Iran’s “cooperation with the agency within the framework of comprehensive safeguards shall continue as before” and that talks will continue on Iran’s signature of the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement.

Three days ago, Iran walked out of an IAEA Board of Governors meeting as the board assigned it an Oct. 31 deadline for increasing cooperation (see GSN, Sep. 12).

Minutes before the walkout, Iranian envoy Ali Akbar Salehi vowed Tehran would conduct a “deep review” of its cooperation with the agency — a relationship that includes regular IAEA activity in Iran and talks on the Additional Protocol, which would allow for more intrusive IAEA monitoring.

Despite Iran’s more moderate statement today, there are indications that Tehran has not finalized its policy on how to handle IAEA demands for greater transparency of its nuclear ambitions.  News agencies have reported that hard-line Iranian press commentators have called for Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 

Salehi himself raised this possibility Wednesday in an interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel, in which he discussed possible Iranian responses to the then-proposed IAEA deadline.

“We could at first limit our cooperation with the IAEA to a minimum, to that which we have committed ourselves. … We could also put a stop to cooperation.  And as a last measure, I cannot rule out we could withdraw from the NPT,” he said.

Yesterday, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said Tehran was still studying its options.

“The nature of our cooperation with the IAEA is under consideration.  The relevant authorities are discussing that and our decision will be made public in the future,” Hamid Reza Asefi said, as reported by Agence France-Presse.

Top U.S. Official Weighs In

The United States has led the way in voicing concerns that Iran could be seeking to develop a nuclear weapon under the cover of technical cooperation with the IAEA.  Leading the U.S. delegation to this week’s general conference, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham today expressed caution about Iran’s latest vow to cooperate, as he expressed concern that Iran is seeking “capabilities that, obviously, can be used for evil purposes … nuclear weapons.”

“This is pretty simple.  I mean, either you’re pursuing a program that is a peaceful-use program, and you’ve got nothing to hide, or you’re not,” Abraham told reporters this afternoon.  In the latter case, he said, contradictions between IAEA findings and Iranian claims about its nuclear program become “understandable.”

“Time will tell, obviously,” Abraham said of Iran’s statement this morning, nevertheless calling the statement “a more hopeful comment.”

The energy secretary said in a plenary speech earlier today that countries “must deal immediately and effectively with any state seeking to exploit the treaty to its own advantage.”

Abraham said the case of North Korea, which ejected IAEA inspectors from its facilities in December, “send[s] a worrisome message to other would-be proliferants.”

“That message,” he said, “asserts that a state can be a member of the NPT, enjoy its benefits and still put in place the assets it needs to break out of the treaty and pronounce itself a nuclear weapon state.  This is the wrong message, and we must learn from this chain of events and not allow it to happen again.”

The board’s resolution Friday, said Abraham, “makes clear that the D.P.R.K. precedent is unacceptable and that the nonproliferation regime can withstand serious challenges when member states are prepared to take firm and necessary action.”

Aghazadeh said today that Iran supports strengthening the global IAEA nuclear safeguards regime for “strategic” reasons, mentioning Israeli nuclear weapons repeatedly as a prime Iranian concern.  Keeping Iran’s nuclear energy program under IAEA safeguards, the vice president said, is in part intended to spur movement toward a Middle East nuclear weapon-free zone.

Despite indicating that Iran will not turn its back on the safeguards regime over last week’s action, Aghazadeh took up this morning where Salehi left off Friday, sharply criticizing the United States in particular and the Board of Governors in general for the process that led to the U.S.-backed resolution to set the Oct. 31 deadline.

In characterizing last week’s proceedings, Aghazadeh spoke of “false attribution [of positions] to the Secretariat,” “arm-twisting in many capitals” and “stonewalling” of Nonaligned Movement attempts to soften the board’s resolution and achieve consensus.

“This is unilateralism at its worst — that is to say, extreme unilateralism posed under a multilateralist cloak.  We believe there is more to this resolution than meets the eye at the first glance.  There is an agenda behind it that is conceived in escalating tension and chaos to divert attention from serious issues that deal with partisan politics in the United States,” he said.

Nevertheless, said Aghazadeh, “We will study the resolution carefully and will respond to it officially in a few days.”

Asked about the charge of unilateralism, Abraham said, “The actions that were taken last week were not unilateral.  They were consensus actions taken by this organization.”  Technically, the board’s resolution Friday was not passed by consensus but simply approved without a vote.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei called it “essential and urgent that all outstanding issues [with Iran] — particularly those involving high-enriched uranium — be brought to closure as soon as possible,” adding that “this is in the interests of both Iran and the international community.”

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, in a message delivered today by Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs Nobuyasu Abe, praised the IAEA’s “continuing efforts to strengthen international safeguards — in particular, to promote conclusion of Additional Protocols by Iran and other states and to encourage other countries to conclude safeguards activities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”

Back to top

U.S. Senators Seek to Stop Nuclear Weapons Research Funding

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) are set to offer an amendment today to the fiscal 2004 energy and water appropriations bill that would eliminate the Bush administration’s request for funding for the research and development of new nuclear weapons.

The amendment would cut the entire $21 million requested by the Bush administration for the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons and the Robust Earth Nuclear Penetrator, Feinstein spokesman Scott Gerber told Global Security Newswire today (see GSN, Aug. 14).  The amendment would also prohibit spending for reducing the time needed to prepare the Nevada Test Site for resumed nuclear testing (see GSN, Sept. 3), and for developing a new plutonium “pit” production facility, which would produce new triggers for nuclear weapons, Gerber said (see GSN, June 3).

In July, the House of Representatives approved its version of the energy appropriations bill, which contained similar funding reductions as Feinstein and Kennedy’s amendment (see GSN, July 16).  The House version of the bill cut all $6 million requested by the Bush administration for the development of low-yield weapons and reduced the White House’s $15 million request for the Robust Earth Nuclear Penetrator to $5 million.  In addition, the House also eliminated the Bush administration’s $24 million request to shorten the time needed to prepare the Nevada Test Site for new testing and reduced the Bush administration’s request for a new pit production facility from $22.8 million to $10 million.

Feinstein is “hopeful” that the amendment, which is expected to be cosponsored by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Ron Wyden (R-Ore.), will pass, Gerber said.  Feinstein believes that it is “important to not open the nuclear door” through the development of new nuclear weapons systems, he said.

Back to top

Pentagon Considering Minuteman 3 ICBM Successor

The U.S. Defense Department is considering the development of a new land-based ICBM to replace the current Minuteman 3, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported this week (see GSN, Sept. 10).

Last month, the Pentagon issued a “request for information” for concepts for a planned replacement of the Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile, according to Jane’s.  The Pentagon has begun examining replacements for the Minuteman starting in 2018 because many of the current missiles are aging, according to Col. Rick Patenaude, chief of Deterrence and Strike in the requirements division of the U.S. Air Force Space Command.  The service has determined that another service-life extension of the Minuteman 3 would be difficult and not cost-effective, Patenaude said. 

The study also includes an examination as to whether a single missile or family of missiles could be used to conduct both nuclear and conventional strikes, according to Jane’s (see GSN, Feb. 24).

In addition, the Navy has released a request for information on a new submarine-launched intermediate-range ballistic missile, Jane’s reported.  The request specifically discusses the possibility that a single missile could be used to perform both nuclear and conventional strikes (Andrew Koch, Jane’s Defense Weekly, Sept. 17).

Back to top

North Korea Willing to Resume Six-Nation Talks

North Korea has agreed to participate in another round of six-nation talks in November to discuss the Korean peninsula’s nuclear crisis, Japan’s Kyodo News agency reported Friday (see GSN, Sept. 12).

Citing diplomatic sources in Moscow, the news service said North Korean officials had notified Russia and other parties to the multilateral talks that first met last month (see GSN, Sept. 2).  Officials were still working to set the exact date of the next round which would likely included North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States (Korea Times, Sept. 14).

Meanwhile, China has deployed 150,000 troops along its border with North Korea in the wake of the August talks, where North Korea reportedly professed to have nuclear weapons and threatened to demonstrate one, the South China Morning Post reported yesterday.

Large troop movements, new military barracks, and air force activity have all been seen along the 1,400-kilometer border, sources said.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry source said the buildup was intended to deter North Korean nuclear ambitions and to encourage Pyongyang to continue negotiations, the Sing Tao Daily reported (BBC Monitoring, Sept. 15).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP